Monday, June 29, 2015

Love of Power Wins – Now the Yezhovschina Can Begin

The Secret Police in
Orwell’s dystopian society were employed by the Ministry of Love. In that
ironic designation we find the genuine meaning of the insistent refrain that
“love” triumphed when the US Supreme Court consummated the long campaign to
bring the most intimate human institution fully under the state’s control.

Those presently
celebrating the state’s “affirmation” of same-sex relationships are intoxicated
by the knowledge that they are the “who” rather than the “whom” in Lenin’s
famous formula (which defines the essential political question as “who does
what to whom”). Like countless others they have been beguiled into believing
that “liberation” is achieved by identifying with the exercise of state power,
rather than being protected against it.

That movement is now pursuing that objective
with unprecedented vigor.

As
the New York Times reports, “gay rights leaders have turned their sights to
what they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and local legal
protections in employment, housing, commerce and other arenas” – a crusade that
will mean constricting the exercise of religious liberty and other elements of
property rights.

In 1993, the ACLU
supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the group recently
invoked in a successful defense of the religious liberties of a Sikh serviceman.That case was decided shortly before the U.S.
Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on same-sex marriage, which made it clear that
the who/whom polarity had shifted. The ACLU is now
demanding modification of the RFRA to allow the federal government to
punish businessmen, clergymen, and other people whose exercise of religious
freedom is deemed “discriminatory” by the state-licensed custodians of correct
sentiments, at least some of whom aren’t content with the piecemeal approach.

Within hours of the
Obergefell ruling, New
York Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer used a Time magazine op-ed column
to demand enactment of a measure that would “abolish, or greatly diminish” the
tax-exempt status “for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on
matters of race or sexuality.” Invoking the standard collectivist fallacy that
the State subsidizes anyone it doesn’t dispossess outright, Oppenheimer groused
that conservative churches are among the “rich organizations [that] horde
plentiful assets in the midst of poverty.”

Only those organizations
offering “an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good” should be
exempt, decrees Commissar Oppenheimer, who like his comrades is serenely
confident that the present who/whom alignment can be made permanent.

To him and those of
his persuasion, the services of an abortion clinic would likely be regarded as
“indispensable and noncontroversial,” and thus worthy of an exemption. Those provided
by a crisis pregnancy center offering material aid and moral encouragement to
women choosing to give birth would be neither, and thus subject to being
pillaged by the IRS -- and, most likely, regulated out of existence. Similar
outcomes would be imposed on contending activist groups deployed on opposing
sides of every culture war fault line.

The power to tax is the
power to destroy, and withdrawing the exemption would effectively extinguish
religious liberty by replacing it with a revocable state-issued license.The ultimate objective is not co-existence
with conservative or traditionalist religious believers, but their subjugation
– in the name of “love,” naturally. “Hate” is already being defined as
disagreement with “settled public policy,” and it would have no legitimate
place in public discourse – or refuge in private life, once privacy had been
effectively abolished.

State-recognized
homosexual unions “are now the law of the land,” observed the paper’s editorial
collective, announcing that henceforth “we will not publish op-Eds and letters
to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage … any more than we would
publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.” An addendum to the
online version of that editorial advised readers that “complaining about our
moderation policy or comments being deleted” was a violation of the paper’s new
“community rules.”

Every publication has
an unqualified right to establish and enforce its own rules of rhetorical comity.
We shouldn’t be surprised if – or when-- the same Progressives who are seeking
modifications to the RFRA and an end to tax exemption for non-Progressive
religious groups would likewise seek to fashion an exception to the First
Amendment for media outlets that publish opinions of the kind the Patriot-News
will no longer carry. This would require a comprehensive national inventory of
political and cultural opinions – and as something other than luck would have
it, the Obama administration is contemplating an initiative of that kind.

During a conversation
with Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, Mr. Obama disclosed that the administration
“is keen to introduce tough new laws which will force the KKK and other extreme
right-wing groups to disclose the identity of their members,” Riley told the Daily Mail of London.

Disagree with Obergefell? You're in the dock with this guy.

“One of the things we
need to do is for the national government to give resources and expose these
hate groups,” Riley elaborated. “We need a national council on these hate
groups. The President is talking about that.”

“In America we
worship the First Amendment and anybody can say anything they want,” Riley told
the paper, a statement anticipating the familiar, self-nullifying use of the
conjunction “but.”

“But” – there it is! – “we need to shine
the spotlight on them [racists and other extremists, presumably], so at least
we know where they are among the public. Neighbors should be able to know that
the person living next to them is an absolute bigot.”

Writing
in The Daily Beast, LBGT activist Jay
Michaelson describes the dissenting opinions in Obergefell, especially that
of Antonin Scalia, as “`stochastic
terrorism,’ the broadcasting of a message so incendiary as to inspire some
`lone wolf’ to violence – if not actual violence, then precisely the kinds of
anti-democratic, anti-American defiance we have already seen among some
politicians.”

John Roberts, who is
obviously no stranger to judicial sophistry, produced a modulated and temperate
dissection of the majority’s “act of will.” Scalia, predictably, was gloriously
intemperate in assailing the majority’s social re-engineering. Michaelson, who
didn’t rebuke the Left for its splenetic
reaction to the Hobby Lobby and Citizens
United rulings, indicted Roberts and Scalia as accessories before the fact
to incipient (albeit unpredictable) acts of domestic terrorism: “It seems
inevitable that rhetoric like this will stir the next Confederate flag-waving
zealot to an act of, if not domestic terrorism, at least outrageous revolt. How
could it be otherwise?”

The only way to
forestall such “inevitable” revolt would be to identify and neutralize Americans of the kind who would have been designated “socially dangerous persons” under the Soviet Union's Fundamental Principles
of Penal Legislation. Article 58 of the penal code, observes the authoritative Black Book
of Communism, dealt with "any activity that, without directly
aiming to overthrow or weaken the Soviet regime, was in itself `an attack on
the political or economic achievements of the revolutionary proletariat.' The
law thus not only punished intentional transgressions but also proscribed
possible or unintentional acts."

"Poison Dwarf": Yezhov.

In defining “socially
dangerous persons" the Soviet regime used "extremely elastic
categories" that permitted pre-emptive incarceration "even in the
absence of guilt." This is because that the Soviet rulers were pleased to
call "the law" specified that imprisonment, exile, or execution could be employed as means of "social
protection" against "anyone classified as a danger to society, either
for a specific crime that has been committed or when, even if exonerated of a
particular crime, the person is still reckoned to pose a threat to
society."

Yezhov had long aspired to become head of the Soviet secret police, and he
ascended to that role following the assassination of Stalin's rival Sergei
Kirov, an act of terrorism orchestrated by Stalin himself. This inaugurated a
short but bloody period of purges and persecution known as the Yezhovschina –
the “Era of Yezhov.” The Poison Dwarf began by denouncing his predecessor as
head of the KNVD, Genrikh Yagoda, for his inadequate zeal in identifying and
eliminating enemies of the regime. Yezhov’s appetite for bloodshed and
oppression grew in crescendo until he, too, was denounced, tortured into
multiple confessions, and executed.

Yezhov’s fate offered
a stark demonstration of the unyielding reality of the “who/whom” dichotomy,
which is best expressed in the words of the Book of Proverbs: “Whoever digs a
pit will fall into it, and the stone will come back on whoever starts it
rolling” (26:27, ISV). Whatever one’s views of traditional marriage, the
ancient wisdom contained in that passage is unassailable – and should be
remembered by those who are presently enraptured by the prospect of exercising state
power in the name of “love.”

A quick note:

My thanks, once again, to everybody who has generously helped us amid our ongoing challenges. I will continue to keep you updated about our situation. We deeply appreciate your kindness. Dum spiro, pugno!

A good thing to keep in mind too is the 1983 Bob Jones University case - they didn't allow interracial dating so the Supreme Court revoked their tax exempt status...

"Justice Alito asked the Solicitor General (who was arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry) if the Bob Jones University ruling would result in the loss of tax-exempt status of any religious school that opposed same-sex marriage. The Solicitor General responded, ‘it’s certainly going to be an issue.’”

I had always assumed the next civil war would be fought over infringements of the second amendment alone. It now appears it will be fought over the regime's war on all civil rights. The speed of its arrival will depend on how quickly the regime renews it's efforts against gun rights. Once millions of us no longer feel there is anything left to lose, the war will begin.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy, and withdrawing the exemption would effectively extinguish religious liberty by replacing it with a revocable state-issued license."

But Will, didn't that already happen? Aren't we witnessing the end results now?

The funny thing is, when the churches in this country decided to forfeit their supra-governmental status and become government-created corporations, this very result became inevitable. What the state creates, it controls and, ultimately, destroys.

When churches were not ever liable to the federal income tax, just as the state citizens were and are not liable, the church authorities did the most curious thing: they agreed to be liable and then sought special exemption. What? Why? The hypocrisy is astounding. They were telling their flocks that they had to pay income tax on top of tithes, but the church itself would be above such an atrocity as the tax. Were all the men of the church fools? Cowards? Unwilling to refuse the pressure to be taxed when they had every legal and lawful right not to be? Why did they not (why don't they now) instruct their flocks in the laws that prove no state citizen has an obligation to pay an income tax to the federal government even as they themselves did not? Why did they lust after 501c3 corporations? What did they need them for? What kind of sorcery seduced their minds, inflamed their lust for lucre?

I want so much to give the men of the church the benefit of the doubt and think they were just naifs, that they did not know they were opening the sheep gates wide and inviting the wolves in to feast. But how can I, a barely-educated peasant, know that by accepting a state-created identity they had sold their soul to the Devil but not the educated men of faith?

Only time will tell how many men of the church will repent and defend the Bride of Christ and how many will continue to grovel at their master's feet while the true faithful disappear below ground and, with all their brethren around the world, continue to worship at The Master's feet.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy, and withdrawing the exemption would effectively extinguish religious liberty by replacing it with a revocable state-issued license."

But Will, didn't that already happen? Aren't we witnessing the end results now?

The funny thing is, when the churches in this country decided to forfeit their supra-governmental status and become government-created corporations, this very result became inevitable. What the state creates, it controls and, ultimately, destroys.

When churches were not ever liable to the federal income tax, just as the state citizens were and are not liable, the church authorities did the most curious thing: they agreed to be liable and then sought special exemption. What? Why? The hypocrisy is astounding. They were telling their flocks that they had to pay income tax on top of tithes, but the church itself would be above such an atrocity as the tax. Were all the men of the church fools? Cowards? Unwilling to refuse the pressure to be taxed when they had every legal and lawful right not to be? Why did they not (why don't they now) instruct their flocks in the laws that prove no state citizen has an obligation to pay an income tax to the federal government even as they themselves did not? Why did they lust after 501c3 corporations? What did they need them for? What kind of sorcery seduced their minds, inflamed their lust for lucre?

I want so much to give the men of the church the benefit of the doubt and think they were just naifs, that they did not know they were opening the sheep gates wide and inviting the wolves in to feast. But how can I, a barely-educated peasant, know that by accepting a state-created identity they had sold their soul to the Devil but not the educated men of faith?

Only time will tell how many men of the church will repent and defend the Bride of Christ and how many will continue to grovel at their master's feet while the true faithful disappear below ground and, with all their brethren around the world, continue to worship at The Master's feet.